[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
AN EXAMINATION OF POINT SYSTEMS AS A METHOD FOR SELECTING IMMIGRANTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,
CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY,
AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 1, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-20
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-114 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RIC KELLER, Florida
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DARRELL ISSA, California
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia STEVE KING, Iowa
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York JIM JORDAN, Ohio
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Joseph Gibson, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees,
Border Security, and International Law
ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois STEVE KING, Iowa
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California ELTON GALLEGLY, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Chief Counsel
George Fishman, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
MAY 1, 2007
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law.............................................. 1
The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.. 3
WITNESSES
The Honorable Jeff Sessions, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Alabama
Oral Testimony................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
Ms. Clare Feikert, LL.M., Foreign Law Specialist for the United
Kingdom, Law Library of Congress
Oral Testimony................................................. 26
Prepared Statement............................................. 28
Mr. Stephen Clarke, LL.M., Senior Foreign Law Specialist, Law
Library of Congress
Oral Testimony................................................. 43
Prepared Statement............................................. 45
Ms. Lisa White, LL.M., Foreign Law Specialist for Australia and
New Zealand, Law Library of Congress
Oral Testimony................................................. 56
Prepared Statement............................................. 58
Mr. Demetrios G. Papademetriou, Ph.D., President, Migration
Policy Institute
Oral Testimony................................................. 76
Prepared Statement............................................. 79
Mr. Howard Greenberg, Partner, Greenberg Turner
Oral Testimony................................................. 85
Prepared Statement............................................. 88
Mr. Lance Kaplan, Partner, Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen, and Loewy
Oral Testimony................................................. 98
Prepared Statement............................................. 100
Mr. Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage
Foundation
Oral Testimony................................................. 109
Prepared Statement............................................. 111
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law................................ 2
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary........................... 4
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law................................ 5
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Questions submitted to each of the Law Library of Congress
witnesses by the Honorable Steve King, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law................................ 133
Memorandum accompanying answers to post-hearing questions posed
by the Honorable Steve King, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law, received from Rubens Medina, Law Librarian
of Congress.................................................... 134
Answers to post-hearing questions posed by the Honorable Steve
King, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, received from
Rubens Medina, Law Librarian of Congress....................... 135
Questions submitted to each of the Law Library of Congress
witnesses by the Honorable Keith Ellison, Member, Subcommittee
on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law.............................................. 140
Memorandum accompanying answers to post-hearing questions posed
by the Honorable Keith Ellison, Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law, received from Stephen F. Clarke, Senior
Foreign Law Specialist, Law Library of Congress................ 141
Answers to post-hearing questions posed by the Honorable Keith
Ellison, Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, received from
Stephen F. Clarke, Senior Foreign Law Specialist, Law Library
of Congress.................................................... 142
Heritage Special Report entitled ``The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill
Households to the U.S. Taxpayer,'' by Robert Rector, Christine
Kim, and Shanea Watkins, Ph.D., published by The Heritage
Foundation, submitted by the Honorable Steve King, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees,
Border Security, and International Law......................... 164
Letter from the Alliance of Filipinos for Immigrant Rights and
Empowerment (AFIRE), et al. to the Honorable Zoe Lofgren,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees,
Border Security, and International Law......................... 220
AN EXAMINATION OF POINT SYSTEMS AS A METHOD FOR SELECTING IMMIGRANTS
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees,
Border Security, and International Law
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:08 p.m., in
Room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe
Lofgren (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Lofgren, Berman, Jackson Lee,
Waters, Delahunt, Ellison and King.
Staff Present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Chief Counsel; R. Blake
Chisam, Majority Counsel; Benjamin Staub, Professional Staff
Member; and George Fishman, Minority Counsel.
Ms. Lofgren. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and
International Law will come to order.
I would like to welcome the Immigration Subcommittee
Members, our witnesses, and members of the public. We are here
today for the Subcommittee's sixth hearing on comprehensive
immigration reform.
In our first five hearings, we examined the need for
comprehensive immigration to secure our borders, to address
economic and demographic concerns, and for historical reasons.
We have examined immigration reform in 1986 and 1996 in an
effort to avoid the mistakes of the past. Last week, we
considered the problems with and proposed solutions for our
current employment and work site verification system.
Today, we are turning our attention to immigration point
systems. You might have noticed some talk over the past couple
of months about selecting immigrants using what's known as a
``point system,'' such as those used by Canada and Australia.
Some have suggested replacing many parts of our current
immigration law with a point system.
In the United States, we have had three overarching
criteria by which we select immigrants: family ties, economic
need, and international humanitarian obligations and
priorities. We have woven these principles into our immigration
preference system, and they are woven into the fabric of our
society.
Whatever our process, we must remain true to these
cherished principles of American society. The question is, can
a point system capture these principles and help us implement
them in practice?
I look forward to the testimony today to help us learn more
about point systems so that we may determine whether it is
right for the United States.
It should be noted that immigration point systems have been
considered and rejected by Congress as far back as 1981 and
again in the late 1980's, even after lengthy hearings and
debate. Have things changed since the 1980's? Are there new
facts to be considered? New issues? These are all questions I
will have for our witnesses today.
I very much look forward to the objective descriptions of
point systems used by Australia, Canada, New Zealand and
Britain, presented by the Library of Congress. They will
provide the background we need to conduct our own analysis of
point systems and allow us to compare them to the current
immigration system. And, as pointed out by the Library, they
are not allowed to take a position on these items, only to
provide technical information.
I look forward to expert opinions on point systems from
witnesses who have studied, practiced and/or advocated for
point systems and, in some cases, compared them to the current
U.S. System. With today's overview and analysis, I hope we can
reach a conclusion on whether the U.S. should also turn to an
immigration point system while moving away from a preference
system built upon family ties, economic need, and humanitarian
concerns.
So thank you again to our distinguished witnesses for being
here today to help us sort through what is a complex and very
important issue; and I would now recognize our distinguished
Ranking minority Member, Congressman Steve King, for his
opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International
Law
I would like to welcome the Immigration Subcommittee Members, our
witnesses, and members of the public to the Subcommittee's sixth
hearing on comprehensive immigration reform.
In our first five hearings, we examined the need for comprehensive
immigration to secure our borders, to address economic and demographic
concerns, and for historical reasons. We have examined immigration
reform in 1986 and 1996 in an effort to avoid the mistakes of the past.
Last week we considered the problems with and proposed solutions for
our current employment and worksite verification system.
Today we are turning our attention to immigration point systems.
You might have noticed some talk over the past couple of months about
selecting immigrants using what's known as a ``point system,'' such as
those used by Canada and Australia. Some have suggested replacing many
parts of our current immigration law with a point system.
In the United States, we have three overarching criteria by which
we select immigrants--family ties, economic need, and international
humanitarian obligations and priorities.
We have woven these principles into our immigration preference
system because they are woven into the fabric of our society.
Whatever our process, we must remain true to these cherished
principles of American society. The question is--can a ``point system''
capture these principles and help us implement them in practice?
I look forward to the testimony today to help us learn more about
point systems so that we may determine whether it is right for the
United States.
It should be noted that immigration point systems have been
considered and rejected by Congress as far back as 1981 and again in
the late 1980's, even after lengthy hearings and debate.
Have things changed since the 1980's? Are there new facts to be
considered? New issues?
These are all questions I will have for our witnesses today. I very
much look forward to the objective descriptions of point systems used
by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Britain, presented by the
Library of Congress. This will provide the background we need to
conduct our own analysis of point systems and allow us to compare them
to the current U.S. immigration system.
I also look forward to expert opinions on point systems from
witnesses who have studied, practiced and/or advocated for point
systems and in some cases compared them to the current U.S. system.
With today's overview and analysis, I hope to reach a conclusion on
whether the U.S. should also turn to an immigration point system while
moving away from a preference system built upon family ties, economic
need, and humanitarian concerns.
Thank you again to our distinguished witnesses for being here today
to help us sort through what is a complex and very important issue.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair; and thanks for holding
this hearing. I'm glad the Immigration Subcommittee is taking
an aggressive approach to the hearings on the complex issue of
comprehensive immigration reform.
As you all know, this subject is like a labyrinth. One
issue leads to another, which leads yet to another. It's
difficult to find the end. So I look forward to many more
hearings in order to flesh out the topics involved with any
comprehensive immigration reform bill.
Today's topic has a long pedigree. In fact, the full
Committee Ranking Member, Mr. Smith of Texas, explored
immigration point systems when he chaired the Immigration
Subcommittee in the late 1990's. I'm pleased the point systems
are being discussed as an option as we work to seek an
immigration system that benefits 21st century America.
The most important concern when discussing any changes to
U.S. immigration policy should be what is in America's national
interest. Unfortunately, many people seem to have the best
interest of other nations and other citizens in mind.
So a system that requires foreign nationals be allocated
points for certain skills and attributes seems like a promising
idea. In fact, in recent years, democratic industrialized
countries around the world have been instituting immigration
point systems. In your remarks, you mentioned those of Canada
and the skills that they identify; and one of the things that
was interesting is the emphasis that Canada put on language
skills, including French and English, their two official
languages.
And Australia also has a point system and identifies a
skilled work force, language proficiency; and also there's the
focus on age and particularly youth, people who have years to
contribute to the economy, rather than just a few years to tap
into the Social Security benefits.
The United Kingdom as well. One of the things that I would
like to point out that caught my attention would be they own a
system that will give the country a, quote--and this is Liam
Byrne, the United Kingdom Immigration Minister. They want a
system that will give the country, quote, the best way of
letting in only those people who have something to offer
Britain, closed quote.
The U.K. System requires a potential immigrant to get at
least 80 points based on age, aptitude and experience, et
cetera. I looked through these lists, and they are very high
standards; and to the extent that, once you get past a certain
age, it's really a detriment to try to apply and be accepted
through these systems and to put that in an economic equation
and define that.
But these kind of point systems that focus on the social
aspects and the family reunification plans seem to work as a
detriment to our economic interests; and I'm interested in
promoting an immigration policy that enhances the economic, the
social and the cultural well-being of the United States of
America. I think that is an important principle for us to
adhere to.
I look forward to the testimony and very much welcome
Senator Sessions from Alabama and appreciate the fact that he's
here today. And I yield back the balance of my time, Madam
Chair.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. King.
Mr. Conyers is apparently on his way, and so we will
reserve his opening statement. And if Mr. Smith arrives, of
course, we will also reserve his opening statement.
In the interest of proceeding through our witnesses and
mindful of their schedules, I would ask that other Members who
arrive submit their opening statements for the record. Without
objection, all opening statements will be placed into the
record; and, without objection, the Chair is authorized to
declare a recess of the hearing at any time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative
in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary
Today, we examine the notion of a ``point system'' as a possible
feature of immigration reform. This system attempts to quantify the
skills of potential immigrants in comparison to the perceived need of
the admitting nation.
Other English-speaking countries have used point systems to decide
who may immigrate. In the United States, on the other hand, our
employment and family-based immigration systems respond not only to
economic needs, but to humanitarian needs as well.
At least three areas of possible concern leap out when looking at a
point system.
First, a point system could result in an inflexible bureaucratic
nightmare. Under this system, occupations are rated and given points on
the basis of the Government's prediction of what jobs are needed.
Frankly, this starts to a lot like the inflexible systems used by HMOs
that take medical decisions away from patients and put them in the
hands of bureaucrats.
In the United States, we should trust employers to determine what
their needs are based on the changing market, rather than publishing
and ranking every category of job and assigning them priority. Such an
expansion of the Labor Department's responsibility to classify and rank
jobs--as contemplated by this proposal--would create a large and
expensive bureaucracy while we would still not have enough labor
inspectors out in the field to prevent worker exploitation.
Second, it appears this system has not worked well in Canada.
People admitted under this program in Canada often fail to obtain
employment in their areas of expertise. An immigration system that
rewards family ties or employer sponsorship seems to make
underemployment or isolation less likely.
Third, a point system could foster discrimination and return us to
the old days in which Northern Europeans were welcomed but African,
Asians and Latin Americans were told that they ``need not apply.'' If a
point system is just a method of selecting the most educated,
disparities in education systems will leave out much of the developing
world. English language requirements can have a discriminatory effect.
Instead of this approach, we should be encouraging talented immigrants
to come to our shores and help them learn English here, which could
then serve as a threshold for a more permanent stay.
Breaking the stranglehold of the old quota system has greatly
benefitted our Nation. Increased numbers of immigrants from the
developing world and their entrepreneurial spirit contributed to
American's economic growth. Some of those people came with developed
skills. Others built their skills in American universities. But many
came with just a dream and a stubborn will to succeed.
A point system that results in de facto exclusion is inconsistent
with our future needs and our lasting values. The country has always
thrived on the experience and determination of such immigrants. A
controlled, orderly, and fair system can harness this energy for the
benefit of all.
I welcome all of our distinguished panelists and I look very much
forward to their testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Today marks the fifth hearing in a series of hearings dealing with
comprehensive immigration reform. This subcommittee previously dealt
with the shortfalls of the 1986 and 1996 immigration reforms, and most
recently the difficulty that employers encountered when they attempted
to verify that potential foreign employees have work authorization. At
last Thursday's hearing on April 26, 2007 we looked at ways to improve
the employment verification system.
Any honest discussion about comprehensive immigration reform must
include the methods utilized by other nations around the globe. This
hearing will focus on a point system, like the ones used by our friends
in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. Point systems have been
considered in the past by both the House and the Senate, however a
point system has consistently been rejected.
Currently the United States has an immigration preference system
that is broken down into two categories, family based immigration and
employment based immigration.
FAMILY BASED IMMIGRATION
The opportunity to migrate to the United States based on familial
status depends on four factors. First, the immigration status of the
sponsoring relative, (i.e.--is the sponsor a United States citizen, or
a lawful permanent resident?). Second, what is the nature of the
relationship? Obviously the closer the relationship the better. Third,
what is the migrant's country of chargeability, or where is the migrant
from? Fourth, what is the existing and anticipated backlog (if any) of
approved aliens in the relevant category for the country of
chargeability. Certain family based categories are never subject to
backlog because there are never subject to limitations. Those
categories are 1) immediate relatives, 2) returning U.S. permanent
residents, and 3) applicants for reacquisition of citizenship, 4)
refugees and asylees, 5) aliens obtaining registry, 6) children born to
immediate relatives after visa issuance, and 7) children born to
permanent residents while temporarily abroad.
FAMILY BASED IMMIGRATION SUBJECT TO BACKLOGS
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows for 480,000 family
preference entrants per year, however only 226,000 are allowed. The
order of preference is as follows:
First preference goes to unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens. Second preference goes to spouses, and minor children of
lawful permanent residents. Also, unmarried sons and daughters of
lawful permanent residents. Third preference goes to married sons and
daughters of U.S. citizens, and their spouses and children. Fourth
preference goes to brothers and sisters of United States citizens, and
their spouses and children, provided the U.S. citizens are at least 21
years of age. The attempt to keep families together in theory is good,
however in practice we all know that this is not the case. The number
of applicants is great, and our resources are few.
EMPLOYMENT BASED IMMIGRATION
Employment based immigration is broken down into five tiers: 1)
Priority workers, 2) Advanced Degree Professionals and Exceptional
Ability Aliens, 3) Skilled Workers, Professionals and Other Workers, 4)
``Special immigrants,'' including religious workers, and 5) Employment
creation immigrants.
The first tier applies to individuals with ``extraordinary
ability'' in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics;
outstanding professors and researchers; certain multinational
executives and managers; the spouse and child of the aforementioned.
The second tier applies to individuals holding advanced degrees in
their profession, or employees with exceptional ability whose services
are sought by an employer in the United States.
The third tier applies to skilled workers, and professionals with
baccalaureate degrees. The fourth tier applies to special immigrants
like religious workers. The final tier applies to migrants who have an
entreprenureial spirit and have invested at least 1 million, but at
times as low as $500,000 in ``targeted employment areas.'' They must
also create no less than ten jobs for American citizens.
This is the current method in the United States. Quite frankly
members of the tech industry will tell you that there are not enough
visas to meet our needs. A practical problem is the fact that the
aliens immediate family members (i.e.--spouse and children) count
against the number of employment based visas that are issued. Thus the
problem may not be in the system, but rather how the system works.
Nevertheless, an examination of our international neighbors methods is
worth looking at.
UNITED KINGDOM, CANADA, AND AUSTRALIA
All three nations utilize a points system to admit skilled workers.
In fact skilled workers represent the majority of immigrants in that
country, whereas the majority of immigrants to the United States are
unskilled workers. Generally speaking, points are awarded on the basis
of education, work experience, language proficiency, arranged
employment, achievement in the applicant's field, age, and occupational
demand. The UK has made a conscious effort to seek out individuals with
MBA's, and Canada's goal is to recruit a majority of highly skilled
immigrants every year.
In conclusion a point system could help, but I advise that any
point system we implement be uniform, and practical because in the end
the United States is the winner.
Ms. Lofgren. We have three distinguished panels of
witnesses here today to help us consider the important issues
before us.
I would like first like to introduce Senator Jeff Sessions
of Alabama, a Member of the Senate's Judiciary Committee and
the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security.
Prior to his election to the Senate in 1996, Senator Sessions
served as both Alabama's Attorney General and the United States
Attorney for Alabama's Southern District. He holds his
bachelor's degree from Huntington College in Montgomery and his
law degree from the University of Alabama.
Welcome, Senator Sessions, to the House Immigration
Subcommittee.
We have--unlike the Senate, we have a 5-minute rule here,
but we will be very generous in the enforcement of such with
our Senate colleague. But we would ask that you summarize your
testimony so that we might have an opportunity for questions.
Thank you so much for coming over to our side of the Capitol.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JEFF SESSIONS,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Mr. Sessions. Thank you, Madam Chairman; and you are wise
to have a 5-minute rule, especially when Senators show up. We
are used to talking on too much.
Maybe I can just sum up, and I'll offer my full statement
for the record, how I see this question and how I believe we
should consider it. And I want to thank you and Mr. King for
both of you inviting me, because I do believe we are talking
about something that is very important.
I believe it was Professor Borjas in his book Heaven's Door
that said, in effect, if your goal for immigration is to serve
the national interest, let me know, I can help you achieve
that. Another witness at one of our Committees said almost the
same thing.
Now, Mr. King said immigration should serve, according to
the Brits and, in his view, the United States, the national
interest. So I think that is a given.
Second, we had in 2000 11 million people apply for the
50,000 lottery slots. Now that gives you some indication of the
truth, which is we can't accept everybody that wants to come to
America. It is a door, Heaven's Door, as Professor Borjas,
himself a Cuban refugee, now at the Kennedy School at Harvard,
says about the subject.
So if we can't accept everybody, then we have to ask
ourselves, how should we deal and decide among those who would
like to come? What is a fair basis? What is a just basis? What
is a basis consistent with our heritage? It's a different kind
of world than we've had in the past with these large numbers
out there.
So I guess first I would say that skilled--and I think
you'll hear from the panels as we go along that immigrants with
higher education levels and higher skills enjoy and benefit
from the American experience more than those who do not.
Likewise, people who come to our country with even some
education, but particularly those with advanced degrees and
higher education and higher skills, pay far more in taxes to
the Government than they will ever take out from the
Government. So those are important factors if we consider what
is in our national interest.
Some have suggested that we can do immigration in large
numbers, even unskilled, and that that will solve our Medicare
and our Social Security long-term systemic problems. I believe
you'll be hearing from Mr. Rector at the Heritage Foundation,
and his numbers conclude just the opposite. In fact, they will
make both of those unsound systems even more unsound.
But if the immigrants who come are high skilled, who are
likely to be high income, who pay large amounts in taxes, that
could in fact positively affect that. And since it's a zero sum
gain when an individual becomes a citizen and has a right to
bring their elderly parents, for example, we have to remember
that they are denying some young person somewhere in the world
who maybe has worked hard to learn English, worked hard and
gotten some advanced degree. They don't have a chance unless
they have a relative.
I think about two young people that might be living in
Honduras. One is a valedictorian who took English in high
school, took advantage of radio or television to learn English
and speak it well, maybe has a year or so of technical school.
That individual would have no chance of coming and would be
competitively at a total disadvantage to a high school dropout
who happened to be the brother of someone who is a citizen of
the United States. So this is the system we have today.
Among those two, who should be the one that would have the
best opportunity to succeed and would have the best opportunity
to contribute to the American system? So I think that is a
factor as we evaluate this.
I am also concerned that by having a disproportionate
number of low-wage, low-skilled workers come in, that, in fact,
wages for lower-skilled workers have not increased and, in
fact, in some areas have decreased factored for inflation.
So it's clear you bring in--in my area of the country, if
you flooded the country with a lot of cotton, our farmers
wouldn't hesitate to complain that their cotton prices will go
down because they have more foreign competition. The same is
true with labor. Extensive large amounts of low-skilled, low-
wage labor does pull down the wage rates of United States
workers; and, in fact, Professor Borjas and others have made
that point quite clear in testimony before the Senate.
So, Madam Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to be
here. In the course of this, I met the Canadian leader of the
point system. We've studied the Australian system. We believe
it has much to commend it. In fact, it can help us in
extraordinary ways to fairly select from those millions that
want to come in ways that will benefit the United States and
provide the best opportunity for those to succeed here.
I'm glad that you're looking at it. It makes so much common
sense to me. I believe the American people need to understand
that you will still be able to bring wives and children when we
say chain migration should be curtailed. But the elderly
parents or brothers and sisters would not get a huge advantage
as they have today to come in just because they have a relative
here.
My time is up. Thank you very much.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Senator, and also for
being so unsenatorial like in your terseness. We appreciate it.
Mr. Sessions. I failed to do one thing and put a chart up
for you. If you will give me 1 minute to do that.
Ms. Lofgren. Of course.
Mr. Sessions. This shows what the United States system
does. We give out 1.1 million green cards. According to the
numbers, we have 58 percent of those basically family based.
That means they did not have to establish any skill to come
into the country.
Canada with their point system--and, in fact, the
Parliament in Canada directed the Immigration Department to
achieve a 60 percent merit-based, and they let them do it how
they chose, and they have about a 60 percent skill-based entry.
And Australia, likewise, has 62 percent skill-based entry.
Canada definitely kept the humanitarian refugee slots.
Australia has a little less refugee slots. So I would contend
that we can keep our humanitarian slots, we can keep spouses
and children slots, but that we ought to make a major movement
to identify those people that can be so beneficial to our
economy and give them priority over those with less potential.
Ms. Lofgren. Do you have another slide?
Mr. Sessions. No, that is it.
Ms. Lofgren. Okay. Thank you very, very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sessions follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Jeff Sessions,
a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama
ATTACHMENT
Ms. Lofgren. In reading through the testimony that will be
offered here today, one of the things that struck me was how
you establish the employment side. We are just looking at the
point system here today, and it's fine to look at it. Most of
the other countries that use it don't use the point system for
the family. They're just looking for the economic-based
employment. And in some of those countries underemployment or
unemployment has actually been a product of the point system,
because the people they've admitted based on their education
may or may not have a job; they may or may not have the
credentials. And it struck me that the marketplace might be a
better sorter of who's going to contribute to our economy than
just a Government point system. What's your thoughts on that,
Senator?
Mr. Sessions. I think the economy does play a big role. But
in certain areas the demand for low-skilled workers could be
very--low-wage workers could be very, very, very substantial;
and that may not be in the best national interest.
So I think Canada, for example, gives skill points for
bricklayers. It gives skill points for drywall workers. So you
can give points for skills for something less than college.
Although in the long run I think statistics will show that a
person with education can adjust to the flow, they're more
flexible, they're more able to adjust and land on their feet,
even if for a temporary period they have difficulties. So I
would tend to not diminish the value of education, but I do
think you could set a skill base set that included more than
just academic skills.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, I agree with that. We do have in our
current system, for extraordinary individuals, there's no
requirement that they have an offer of employment. We just make
the assumption that at that level they're going to be good for
the country.
But, for example, in Canada you might have someone with an
M.O., but because of credentialing they're driving a cab
instead. They haven't been licensed to practice. And having a
job would make sure the skilled people, not the extraordinary
people, were actually able to contribute in a way that was
envisioned.
Mr. Sessions. Australia does emphasize that occupational
connection much more, and points are given for a guaranteed job
in an area that they've certified and needs work. In fact, if--
some districts of Canada are overpopulated, and in Australia I
think they give more points if you are going into an area that
needs more workers.
Ms. Lofgren. New Zealand does that as well.
In terms of the under-Ph.D.-level skill level, let's say--I
mean, there's skilled trades, there's locksmiths, plumbers.
Those are jobs where really there's a skill set that is
required, but it may not be book learning in the same way.
Australia gives points for that and seeks them out. Do you
envision that being part of a system that would serve American
interests as well?
Mr. Sessions. I do.
Madam Chairman, it's a little bit--I'm a little ambivalent
about one thing. Canada just simply told the Immigration
Department to do it. Our history has been for Congress to write
the law and set the--even down to minute numbers. Perhaps we
need to look for some sort of balance where the Labor
Department or the Commerce Department rates certain industries
as needing more workers and skills are needed and adjust those,
have the flexibility to adjust them on a year-to-year basis.
Probably this Congress will want to be more involved than they
have been in Canada. But, likewise, I do think we should give
some flexibility to the relevant department to decide national
needs.
Ms. Lofgren. It's interesting that you say that, because
that is something I've observed as well. I mean, the Congress
deciding where the shortage is doesn't really work. We don't
meet often enough, and it just hasn't worked out. But Schedule
A, which is supposed to identify the shortages in the
Department of Labor, that hasn't been updated either. That is
still the case with some of the medical professions, but we had
some extreme shortages, and they never really updated that. So
I'm wondering if we should look at--if we are going to delegate
that with some guidelines, maybe we need to look at some new
criteria to make that happen? I'm wondering if you've given
some thought to that.
Mr. Sessions. I have not given detailed thought to it, but
that is my general impression.
I would mention one thing. I think the talking points that
the Administration got to the press, that they've put out
there, one thing that we shouldn't forget in this mix and that
is it creates what I expect and hope would be a real temporary
worker program. So this could be agricultural workers, this
could be other low-skilled workers who come for, in my view, a
year or less without their family and can come back and forth
as many times as they would like, something like that. So this
would help--but they wouldn't be shut out of applying for
citizenship.
So if they wanted to become a citizen, they could be coming
for 5 years, maybe getting a junior college degree or college
degree. Then they could apply for the permanent track also and
perhaps have a chance to come on in as a citizen if they would
be meritorious.
Ms. Lofgren. I know my time is up, but if I can just follow
up on that point. One of the things we've thought about is--I
mean, there are many issues here. One is our labor needs. One
is, if you take a look at our demographic needs, our birth rate
is not sufficient to meet our job production rate, just as
Western Europe and Russia and other developed economies--well,
I don't know how developed Russia is, but certainly Western
Europe and Japan are facing that same problem.
So we've thought about, rather than trying to micromanage
it, use market forces to let people make some determinations
themselves, since the history of migration in the Western
Hemisphere is largely circular, not permanent. But rather than
the U.S. Government playing Big Brother, you just let the
market play more of a role than we've done in the past. It
sounds like you've given some thought to that.
Mr. Sessions. I think something like that can work. I just
believe that the bill as written in the Senate last year was
defective in that the temporary guest worker program allowed an
individual to come, to bring their family, their wife and
children, for 3 years and, if they were still working, get an
automatic 3 years and automatic 3 years on down the line. And,
in effect, after a decade or so, they're entrenched here; and
if that job is not here, then we have an illegal person that we
are not able to--morally, it's just very painful to try to
remove someone like that.
So I think we are fooling ourselves if we go that route. We
should have a genuine temporary worker program that is
temporary and a permanent system of immigration that is based
on merit and skill.
Ms. Lofgren. My time has expired, and I would like to
recognize the Ranking Member for his 5 minutes plus.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Sessions, looking over your chart here and the
United States showing 22 percent in the skill employment based
in the blue, and my notes show that that's about a little short
of 250,000 people annually. But 54 percent of those were used
for spouses and dependent children. So I make a point that a
portion of those skill based, by my statistics, and actually
also a majority of them were also family reunification type of
visas, and so that 22 percent gets slipped down to 10 percent.
Would you concede that point or criticize it?
Mr. Sessions. You know, I actually would.
One of the quotes I have in my handout, I believe, is it
Professor Chiswick or one of the professors that testified, his
number was 7 percent actually on skill-based. This is a number
that has sort of been used. But it does include, I believe,
children and spouses. Certainly children wouldn't likely be
skilled, and spouses may or may not be. So I think that
overstates the number.
Mr. King. So when I look at that chart, I slice that piece
in half in my mind's eye; and you add that number up then to 11
or maybe even another 17 percent altogether.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. King, I think the reason we use that
number is because that is the way Canada and Australia do, so
we are comparing apples to apples when we are looking at the
charts. But, in truth, many of those in that 22 percent are
likely to be unskilled.
Mr. King. If I will take the 7 percent of Professor
Chiswick that is in your document, that takes us to 75 percent
of that chart would be blue. So I just wanted to emphasize that
point. I appreciate the position you've taken on this.
Of the categories that are most often used, and among them
are education, job skills and language skills, et cetera, what
would you rank as the most important criteria?
Mr. Sessions. I think since we have millions each year that
want to come here that we are not able to accept, I think it
would be perfectly responsible and reasonable to ask that they
have language skills before they come. Because English is an
international language. Almost any country in the world you
could have developed those skills. So I think that is very
important.
But I believe the statistics do show that even with a few
years of college a person is most likely to be quite successful
in the United States. So education seems to--now, if you take a
specific skill, that could be very valuable, too. But then
again a decade from now and the technology changes and that
person's skills are not so much needed.
Mr. King. As I look at these charts from the various
countries and look at the categories that are there, I didn't
know what I was going to see. I expected something fairly basic
that I'm looking at here. I expected something perhaps more
sophisticated. Maybe behind that there are the other kind of
spreadsheets that would take in some subfactors, so to speak.
But I would wonder if you've given any thought to the idea
that we could put a cap on our overall immigration and say this
would be a fixed number for a year, if we can agree on what
that number is, no matter what the circumstances, we not exceed
that, and then, when we turn that slice of blue pie into
something significantly bigger than that, be able to define
that to the extent that we could pick the profile of those who
would be a net contributor to our economy and also pay a little
consideration to their ability to fit into the culture in some
way. Would you think that we could be sophisticated enough that
we could give a score system in that and be able to make it a
net positive and identify it scientifically and use that,
Congress set the cap rather than business make the demand, and
then the highest priority would be those who contribute the
most?
Mr. Sessions. Yes, yes, and I guess with some caution. I do
believe that we should spend some time as a Congress asking
those more detailed questions, and I believe we can draft a
legislation that includes an emphasis on areas that are likely
to be successful.
I also am of the belief that immigration is ultimately in
the national interest. Therefore, just to say a willing worker
and a willing employer, as the President has said a number of
times, does not strike me as good policy. In other words, we
would almost be saying the Government has no interest. As long
as there's an employer and employee, they get to decide. And
that is sort of what's been happening through illegality and
other things. So I don't think that is acceptable.
But I do believe we could write some standards, and we
could also give governmental agencies a cap number and allow
them to adjust in there for changing economic circumstances or
historical changes in the economy.
Mr. King. Thank you, Senator.
I want to make sure that I'm clear on how these pieces fit
in this jigsaw puzzle. I'll say there are a lot of
hypotheticals in immigration policy, and that is one of the
reasons it's very complicated. But, as I understand this, you
would look at the unskilled labor, an acknowledgement that we
need some of that in certain areas, and those would be the
temporary workers, but they wouldn't be precluded from working
to get their education and skills up to where they could
qualify to be a net benefit to society; and, while all that is
going on, focus your real immigration that had a path to
citizenship on those that could make a distribution to the
economy?
Mr. Sessions. That is a good summary of it, Mr. King. I
think that would be good for America. I think that is something
other nations have proven and like what they're doing, nations
that have similar economies to ours. So I think that is the way
we should go.
I know it's complicated. I've been very disappointed,
actually, and somewhat surprised we've had so little discussion
of this in recent years. In fact, a bill that hit the Senate
floor last year had no reference to these ideas at all.
I was not able to get a point-based hearing in Judiciary,
but I'm on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee,
and we did have one hearing in that Committee on the point
system, which I thought was good because we had some excellent
witnesses. So I think we should pursue this. I think we have
the possibility of doing something we could be very proud of.
Mr. King. Senator, I want to thank you for your testimony
today. You've given me some things to think about, too. And
that is what these hearings are about, to help rearrange our
thought process so we can come to a conclusion that is good for
the country. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. King.
Senator, are you able to stay for additional questions?
Mr. Sessions. I could.
Ms. Lofgren. Then I would recognize Mr. Delahunt from
Massachusetts.
Mr. Delahunt. Senator, welcome to the House of Commons.
Mr. Sessions. It's good to be here. I almost said among the
commoners, but I knew better.
Mr. Delahunt. We respect and appreciate the House of Lords.
And I apologize. I had another hearing going on, and I'm just
walking in at the tail end.
You know, the skill component of a point system, I guess
much would depend on the eye of the beholder in terms of what
constitutes skills. What's your definition?
Mr. Sessions. Well, we know education makes a difference.
We know language skills make a difference. I note that the
Canadian system gives skill points for bricklayers. It gives
skill points for drywall workers. So I think as we analyze our
economy that those could be given skill points, too.
Mr. Delahunt. So the concept of skill, however, for
determination, the definition of skill would depend on the
economic needs of the country at a particular point in time?
Mr. Sessions. I think so. To me, you want to select the
people who are most likely to benefit from this great American
experience, the people who are likely to flourish the best; and
how you do that is very difficult. My inclination, as I said
with the Chairman, would be that perhaps Congress, since we are
in the habit of micromanaging immigration more than they do in
Canada, we might have some basic standards that we set. But I
believe we should give an independent agency, our Cabinet,
Commerce, Labor, some input in deciding how many numbers you
may need in bricklaying and how many you may need in computer
workers.
Mr. Delahunt. But this wouldn't--you know, this would not
exclude, for example, refugees or asylum seekers?
Mr. Sessions. No. My view would be, as Canada and Australia
have--the green represents 16 percent in Canada is
humanitarian, 9 percent in Australia, so we would set a number
probably consistent with our 16 percent heritage of
humanitarian.
Mr. Delahunt. That is all the questions I have. Thank you,
Senator.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
Mr. Ellison.
Mr. Ellison. Good afternoon, Senator. How are you?
Just a few questions. I notice that on the pie charts you
have there that the family-based piece is a large proportion of
American's immigration. The other ones are much smaller. How
would the fourteenth amendment's language saying that people
are citizens in the States in which they are born, essentially
making a child born to immigrants a citizen, how would that
impact a system in which we de-emphasize family-based
decisionmaking in immigration? Do you think it would?
First of all, do you think it would; and, if so, how?
Mr. Sessions. Well, I've tried to read the case law on
being born in America. It's maybe not conclusive but appears to
suggest that birth does give you citizenship.
On family, you don't have a constitutional right to come
here. And on the family question I believe that spouses and
children should be able to come. But the question is aging
parents or brothers and sisters, and there's a zero sum gain,
Congressman. So for every, say, aging parent that comes, that
is a slot denied to the young valedictorian in Honduras who
speaks English but doesn't have a relative here.
Mr. Ellison. Thank you, Senator.
I guess a part of what was inside of my question was what
is this family--58 percent family made up of? Is it siblings,
as you pointed out, or aging parents? What is the driver behind
that?
Mr. Sessions. That 58 percent of family includes--and
correct me if I'm wrong, counsel--does that include spouses and
children or just brothers, sisters and parents?
Voice. All of them.
Mr. Sessions. It includes all of them.
Mr. Ellison. Does your able counsel have any idea on what
percentage is what in terms of families?
Mr. Sessions. We do have the numbers. I've seen somebody
float the numbers.
In other words, if you eliminated 50,000, the 4 percent
lottery slots, and you eliminated the non-nuclear family, you
would free up quite a number of slots. That would move us
probably above 50 percent with just those changes, above 50
percent being skill-based.
Mr. Ellison. Okay. Well, I'm sorry I missed your testimony.
There's a lot of things going on around here.
But another question is I think earlier in your testimony--
I could be wrong, maybe I got this wrong, but it sounded like
you said that part of the criteria we should apply in
immigration reform is fairly selecting from immigrants who
come. Do you remember using that terminology?
Mr. Sessions. Yes. I believe that since everyone is not
allowed to come--and we had 11 million people in 2000 apply for
the 50,000 lottery slots; it gives you some indication of the
number--that we should have an objective, fair system to select
from those who would want to apply to come here.
Mr. Ellison. Would you mind elaborating on how you would
define fair?
Mr. Sessions. Well, I think it would be fair that we
consider what is in our national interest first.
Second, you would ask, is this person--does this person
possess skills that are likely to allow them to flourish in
America and enjoy the greatest benefits from coming to America?
I think we ought to also consider the impact it might have
on wages of hard-working Americans who may be overcompeted by a
flood of labor in their particular skill set.
So all those would be factors that I think we should
consider.
Mr. Ellison. Would you consider fair to also include
reaching for diversity of nations that people could come from?
Would your calculus of fair also mean, for example, that if we
are going to get a lot of people from, say, Liechtenstein,
maybe we should also have some people come from Lesotho? Would
that kind of fairness enter into your calculation?
Mr. Sessions. It would be difficult to start trying that.
We used to do that, give preference to nations who had a
historic flow of immigrants here, as I understand it, maybe
before the '60 bill or somewhere along there. But I think our
view now is to be open to the whole world and allow people an
equal chance to apply. But, as we are, it's recent relatives,
people that are alive. Just because your grandfather came into
the United States and now deceased, it wouldn't help you at
all. But if you had a brother under the current law, that would
help you. So it accelerates itself to some degree, and the
family connection does.
Mr. Ellison. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. Does the gentleman yield back?
I would just note before calling on my colleague, Ms.
Waters, that if you add up the 50,000 for the lottery and the
65,000 and 23,000 for the other two categories, it's about
138,000. So that would actually not put us in the other 50
percent.
Mr. Sessions. How far would that go?
Ms. Lofgren. Well, I went to law school so I wouldn't have
to do math in my head.
Mr. Sessions. And, also, we've got to look at the overall
number. Most of the legislation we are seeing has a big
increase, not just comprehensive reform on who comes but also
increases. So I think the increases might also, if that occurs,
should be considered.
Ms. Lofgren. We are going to have another hearing on that
whole subject.
Mr. Sessions. I think that is a fundamental question: How
many?
Ms. Lofgren. That is a very important question.
Ms. Waters, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman; and I
would like to thank the Senator for his presence here.
I came here today focused on several conversations that I
had this weekend as I traveled around. All of the conversations
that are being brought to my attention, and including that
which I'm seeing in the news media, happens to be about the
family and separation of the family; and I'm increasingly
getting worried about this.
There was one presentation on one of the channels where a
reporter interviewed a little boy and asked him about what kind
of choice was he going to make, was he going to stay here in
the United States or was he going to be back with his mother,
who is going to be deported? What would he like to do? And I
thought it was just such an unfair question to ask a 7- or 8-
year-old boy, and I'm worried about family separation and
division.
I come from a history of people who understand the
devastation of family separation. Slaves were separated,
children were sold off from their parents, sent to different
parts of the world, and on and on and on. So it's something
that many African Americans pay very close attention to and
don't want to be part of separating mothers and fathers from
their children and even grandmothers and grandfathers.
So you may have talked about this already and I didn't hear
it, but I'm wondering what your response is to this potentially
devastating occurrence as we look at immigration reform.
Mr. Sessions. I think you raise an important question. We
did discuss that some earlier.
In my view, a person allowed into our country under our
system like Canada's, their system allows the wife or husband
and children to come. We might have a circumstance that I think
you may be talking about where a child is born here as a
citizen and the mother may not be. I think we'll just have to
wrestle with that. To me, that is not a huge number. We should
make a just decision about what's fair and just under those
circumstances. I don't think that is a big enough number to put
us in a position where we couldn't reach an agreement on how
that ought to be handled.
Ms. Waters. In defining what--the family that could be
considered to stay, based on the child or children that are
born here, whether that would include mother, father and others
perhaps?
Mr. Sessions. Right. I think that is just a question we'll
have to wrestle with.
There are some circumstances where a person deliberately
came into the country illegally to have a child here. Maybe you
would not want to reward that. But somebody who has been here
for a number of years and has a child, you may want to have a
different standard and say they can stay with their child. It
would just something I think we would have to wrestle with.
Ms. Waters. Thank you.
I yield to Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. Delahunt. I have one final question.
Senator, I appreciated your observation about flexibility
in terms of economic needs as far as the skill sets are
concerned. Then I heard you speak about the number, and I think
that is a key question. What is the number at the end of the
day?
When I listen to the demographics of those who are
demographers--however you say it--demographers, thank you. As
you extrapolate down the road, you know, our labor force very
well will mirror what is occurring in Europe now, which is a
significant decline in terms of population and an inadequate
labor force. Would you consider a number that would not have to
come back to Congress for approval time and time again and put
the Senate and the House through an arduous task of examination
but allow a built-in flexibility to meet our labor needs?
For example, I remember President Fox saying by the year
2020 there will be no more immigration from Mexico because they
will need by that time the entire number of people that are
immigrating from Mexico into the United States to meet their
own economic needs.
Mr. Sessions. I recall Professor Borjas at Harvard, himself
a Cuban refugee, his book which is authoritative at the Kennedy
School----
Mr. Delahunt. Those are all good credentials.
Mr. Sessions. Good credentials. I thought you would
recognize that. He wrote a number of years ago--and this really
struck me. We had about 1.1 million. He wrote that, in his
opinion, the economy of the United States would be best served
with 500,000 a year.
So I'm not sure what that number ought to be. Most people
think--you know, the conventional wisdom is, the Wall Street
Journal, it probably ought to be more than 1.1 million. But
exactly what that number is, I think we deserve to spend some
time in Congress--we have a responsibility in Congress to dig
into it and try to ask that. And I'm glad, Madam Chairman,
you're going to be able to do that.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Berman of California.
Are you running out of time?
Mr. Sessions. I'm running out of a bit of time, but if
someone has a question or two I would be delighted to try to
respond.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Berman says he has just one question.
Mr. Berman. Thank you, Senator.
If Congress decided to shift the fundamental nature of its
legal immigration system to a point-based system, essentially
to expand the blue universe through a point system that
recognized a lot of different things but put some special
premium on education and skills and job openings and things
like that, would you--as part of that--would you be prepared to
support a comprehensive approach, which also included a way by
which people who are now in this country out of status,
illegally, however you want to--bad documents, however you want
to phrase it, would be able to adjust their status?
Mr. Sessions. I like the talking points that the President
and his Cabinet--at least his Cabinet members showed to me as a
framework that could come close, could get my support, perhaps.
And it has a real temporary worker program where people come
temporarily without their families. They could also apply for
permanent citizenship. It has a permanent citizenship with some
sort of point system.
Now, this is just an outline talking points. It has a much
better enforcement at the border. It has a workplace
enforcement that could actually work.
Mr. Berman. Employee verification.
Mr. Sessions. Employee verification. I believe we can fix
that. If we tell businesses precisely what to do, they'll
comply, most of them.
And then you have the people that are here illegally, and
it's my view that there has to be some compassionate resolution
of that and that people who have been here a long time with
children who are in school, it wouldn't be right to try to
remove all of those. So we would come up with a humanitarian
way to deal with that.
My general view is that persons who got the benefit of that
legalization should not get every single benefit that goes to
someone who came legally and waited in line. So, to me, that is
an outline that could reach a bipartisan consensus.
But, as I told the reporter a while ago, I do intend to
read the fine print on whatever they put out, because
oftentimes the framework sounds good, as you know, Congressman,
and the fine print doesn't quite get there.
Mr. Berman. I think that is a hopeful sign for the ability
of this place to do something this year.
Mr. Sessions. And, basically, that is what I said in my
speeches last year as a framework for a settlement. So I can't
be anything but somewhat pleased at the way the discussion is
heading this year.
Ms. Lofgren. Senator, you've been here for an hour. We
appreciate your generosity of time, and we are looking forward
to working with you in trying to--you know, we may not see
things 100 percent, but if we work together in good faith, I'm
hopeful we can come to a system that works for our country.
Mr. Sessions. I believe we need reform. The whole system is
broken, so comprehensive reform is certainly needed, and how we
get there is the question. Thank you so much.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
And I'm sorry, Ms. Jackson Lee, the Senator ran out of time
before we got to your last question.
Ms. Lofgren. We are now going to move to our second panel.
The second panel should come forward.
I'm pleased to introduce Clare Feikert, the United Kingdom
Foreign Law Specialist at the Law Library at the U.S. Congress.
Prior to her work with the Library of Congress, Ms. Feikert
served as a law clerk for the Head Solicitor of Police at the
Sherwood Lodge Police Headquarters in England and as a clerk at
the Center for Democracy and Human Rights here in Washington.
She holds a bachelor's degree with honors from the University
of Lincoln in England and an LL.M. in International Legal
Studies from American University, Washington College of Law.
We are also pleased to have Stephen Clarke with us, the
Senior Foreign Law Specialist for the Law Library of Congress.
Mr. Clarke has conducted research with the Law Library since
1979 and has guest lectured at Georgetown University Law
Center, Duke University, and the Center For Legislative
Exchange in Ottawa. Mr. Clarke earned his bachelor's degree
from the University of Illinois, his LL.B. from Osgoode Hall
Law School in Toronto, and LL.M. from Georgetown University Law
Center.
And, finally, I would like to welcome Lisa White, the
Foreign Law Specialist for the Law Library on Australia, New
Zealand and Pacific common law jurisdictions. Ms. White came to
the Law Library last year after having practiced law at Deacons
law firm in Canberra, Australia. Before her practice, Ms. White
worked for the National Museum of Australia and the Australian
Department of Defense as a policy advisor. Ms. White graduated
with a B.A. from the College of Fine Arts and an LL.B. from the
University of South Wales in Sydney; a graduate diploma in
legal practice in the College of Law in Sydney; and, finally,
an LL.M. from the University of Melbourne.
As you know, your entire written statements will be made
part of our record; and we would ask each of you to summarize
your testimony in about 5 minutes.
We understand that the Library serves as a technical
resource to us here in Congress. We will not be trying to force
you into giving us policy advice. But just reading your resumes
reinforces what a resource we have in the Library of Congress.
Ms. Lofgren. So if we can begin with you, Ms. Feikert.
TESTIMONY OF CLARE FEIKERT, LL.M., FOREIGN LAW SPECIALIST FOR
THE UNITED KINGDOM, LAW LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Ms. Feikert. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the
Committee.
I would like to give a brief overview of the use of points
based migration in the United Kingdom. Currently, the United
Kingdom only has one points-based immigration system, the
Highly Skilled Migrant Program. This was established in 2002 as
a pilot scheme and ran for 1 year. It was decided it was a
success and formally incorporated into the immigration system
at the U.K. in 2003. It's been cited as one of the most
dramatic developments in recent commercial immigration law.
It allows highly skilled migrants to enter the country
without the need for a work permit, business plan, the
requirement to invest money or create jobs without a specific
job offer. It allows migrants to enter the U.K. to seek work or
self-employment opportunities.
The rules for the Highly Skilled Migrant Program were
amended in December, 2006, and now require applicants to score
75 points or more based on various criteria that have evolved
to ensure that the system selects the migrants most likely to
be successful in the labor market of the U.K. Applicants must
also to intend make the U.K. Their main home, be able to
maintain themselves and any dependents without recourse to
public funds and, where appropriate, obtain a visa in order to
lawfully enter the country.
Points are currently awarded in four areas: educational
qualifications, past earnings, an age assessment--younger
people obtain more points to even out work experience and
earnings--and previous experience in the U.K. From December,
2006, a mandatory English language requirement was introduced,
as it was found that people needed to speak English in order to
most benefit the labor market in the U.K. Applicants must have
an international English language testing certificate at the
level 6 or above to meet these requirements. Additional
guidance on the implementation of these criteria are due to be
published by the Government in May, 2007.
The duration of stay under the Highly Skilled Migrant
Program is initially granted for a period of 2 years, although
this can be extended upon application. When applying to extend
the duration of stay, the applicant must show that they
continue to meet the criteria that they initially had to meet
in order to obtain entry initially and again show that they
have the mandatory English language requirement.
If the applicant qualifies for this 3-year extension, they
are then able to later apply for a British citizenship. They
would then meet the 5-year requirement of lawful residence in
the U.K. to then apply for British citizenship.
The Highly Skilled Migrant Program has been considered
successful by the Government in attracting top-class workers
from around the globe to contribute to the UK's economy and to
fill skill gaps in the UK's labor market.
In its first year of operation, the program attracted 1,100
successful applicants. In 2006, this number increased to over
47,000. The December, 2006, part of the amendment to the
criteria was to actually increase the points requirement on
applicants that were attempting to come into the U.K. under
this program.
The system is relatively flexible and can be easily altered
to meet the skill needs and requirements of the day. For
example, there's currently an MBA provision that would award a
migrant with an MBA from certain schools the full 75 points
that are required in order to let them enter into the country
using that, provided, of course, they obtain a visa.
There are also--obviously, with any migration program,
there are some abuses of the system that, if the Government had
failed to address, would have led to public loss of confidence
in this program as well as a loss of confidence from those that
the U.K. Would have wished to apply under it.
The application criteria, as I noted, were revised in light
of this. It was considered by many that the initial criteria
were too subjective, leading to speculative applications,
people not showing that they were meeting the points, and the
criteria themselves were difficult for case workers to
consistently and objectively implement. The Government believed
that this uncertainty had led to a refusal rate of 56 percent
of decisions made in 2005.
As the system is also entirely self-funding through fees,
these cost the migrants each an application fee of $600,
totaling nearly $14 million in fees alone, which could also act
a deterrent for the people that the U.K. were truly trying to
attract to come into the country.
The Government altered the criteria in December, 2006, in
an attempt to resolve this and prevent the uncertainty and
prevent speculative, as well as some possibly fraudulent,
applications.
I would like to thank you again for inviting me to testify
here today and thank you for your time and attention. I would
be more than happy to address any questions you might have.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Feikert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Clare Feikert
ATTACHMENT
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Clarke.
TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN CLARKE, LL.M., SENIOR FOREIGN LAW
SPECIALIST, LAW LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Mr. Clarke. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
In 2006, Canada granted permanent residence to
approximately 250,000 persons. These immigrants were accepted
in several different categories. There were economic
immigrants, family class members, business immigrants and
persons who had been nominated by one of the 10 provinces.
Refugees are also counted in the figure, because refugees whose
claims are recognized are eventually given permanent residence.
Of the different categories, by far the largest is economic
immigrants, which is mostly composed of skilled workers and
independent workers and their dependents. This group accounts
for over 50 percent of Canada's immigrants.
Other family class immigrants account for less than one-
third of Canada's immigrants; and, as I think Senator Sessions
very effectively pointed out, this is probably the major
difference between Canadian and American immigration policies.
In Canada, skilled workers are assessed using a point
system. The point system is not used for other classes of
immigrants. Canada actually has had a point system for many
years. However, prior to 2002, the system was weighted in such
a manner that in order for an independent immigrant to receive
an immigrant visa it was virtually necessary for him or her to
have a job offer for a position that there was no Canadian
ready, willing, and able to fill. There was a job certification
process.
However, in 2002, Canada changed its immigration philosophy
after finding that persons demonstrating specialized knowledge
and initiative were the types of persons who were most likely
to succeed in joining Canadian society. Therefore, the point
system was revamped to de-emphasize job offers, although that
still remains one consideration.
So, under the current system, there are now six selection
factors. The maximum number of points that a person can
accumulate is an even 100, and the current pass mark is 67,
which is somewhat lower than it was several years ago.
The selection criteria and the maximum number of points
that can be earned in each of the categories are as follows:
For education, a person can earn up to 25 points--that would
normally be for someone with a postgraduate degree--for
language ability a person can earn up to 24 points, 16 for
fluency in either French or English and an additional 8 for
fluency in the other official language.
For experience in a qualified field or position, you can
earn up to 21 points. Experience--the maximum points for
experience are earned with 4 or more years of work in an
approved classification position.
For age, persons between the ages of 21 and 49 can earn up
to 10 points or are awarded up to 10 points. Persons who have
arranged employment can earn another 10 points. And then
finally there is sort of a catch-all category, which is called
adaptability, for which a person can be awarded a final 10
points, and for that category, remote, family relations are a
consideration.
One of the majors advantages of the new system is that it
is relatively transparent. Prospective applicants can go on
line and conduct a self-assessment of their chances of meeting
the pass mark.
The system is also very flexible. The Department of
Citizenship and Immigration can raise or lower the pass mark to
keep the number of new immigrants close to the large target
figures established by the Government.
Canada doesn't have country or hemispheric quotas, but it
does establish annual targets based primarily upon its labor
needs. Major sources of complaints, as was mentioned by Madam
Chairman, are that not all new immigrants are able to find
immediate employment in their chosen field, often because their
foreign credentials are not fully accepted. There is some
evidence that this problem has been growing even though the
Canadian economy has been very strong in recent years.
There is no easy answer to this situation, but it is well
to remember that the current system was redesigned to give
persons, who might otherwise have had little or no chance of
obtaining a job offer in Canada, a chance to immigrate to the
country. The system was never intended to guarantee all persons
immediate employment in their chosen fields. Besides, many
professions are licensed by provincial bodies; the Federal
Government cannot order the provinces to accept foreign
credentials. The most they can do is to assist new immigrants
in obtaining the training or experience they need to act in
their profession and to work with provincial organizations. And
recently, the Government did set aside some money to assist in
that endeavor.
Ms. Lofgren. Could you summarize?
Mr. Clarke. I will conclude.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clarke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen Clarke
Ms. Lofgren. Ms. White.
TESTIMONY OF LISA WHITE, LL.M., FOREIGN LAW SPECIALIST FOR
AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND, LAW LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Ms. White. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Australia's immigration program is global and
nondiscriminatory. It is divided into a migration program and a
humanitarian program, both of which are further divided into
streams and categories of visas.
Currently----
Ms. Lofgren. Would you move the mike a little bit closer to
you.
Ms. White. Currently Australia's migration program is
focused on skilled migration and has been so focused since the
late 1970's and early 1980's. Immigration to Australia is
administered by the Federal Department of Immigration and
Citizenship.
Australia utilizes a point-based system in relation to some
of its skilled migrant visas. The most common visas that
utilize the point system are those of the independent, skilled
migrants which includes students studying in Australia,
Australian-sponsored skilled migrants, and state or territory-
sponsored skilled migrants. The point system is not utilized
for family reunions, humanitarian visas nor in relation to
employer-sponsored visas.
Generally, skilled migrants have excellent labor
participation rates within Australia, and certainly at least
one study I have seen has suggested that the key criteria in
relation to that are skills recognition and, primarily, English
language skills.
Under the point system, an applicant must meet initial
criteria of age and language skills, and then their application
is awarded points in relation to specified categories,
primarily: qualifications; age: relevant work experience,
whether or not their occupation is in demand in Australia; and
English language skills. Additional points may be awarded for a
qualified spouse, Australian qualifications, capital
investment, other language skills (other community language
skills) and Australian work experience.
Under the point system, each visa has a pass mark, being
the number of points necessary to obtain a visa, and a pool
mark, being the number of points necessary to remain in the
pool of applicants, should there not be sufficient pass-level
applicants or should the pass mark be revised.
Under the current immigration procedure in place in
Australia, an applicant's qualifications are assessed for
recognition in Australia prior to the applicant's arriving in
Australia. In that case, you are not awarded the points for
certain occupations until you offer proof that your
qualifications have been assessed as being recognized in
Australia. This does avoid underemployment of skilled migrants.
The skilled stream of Australia's Migration Program is
intended to enhance Australia's economy by allowing skilled
people access to Australia's workforce. The benefits of the
points system is it allows the Australian Government to
systematically and objectively select the skilled migrants most
likely to contribute to the objectives of the skilled migration
program.
It also further allows the Australian Government to
regulate the number of skilled migrants by varying the points
requirement according to planning levels set by the Australian
Government. Thus, for example, to encourage skilled migration
to regional and rural Australia, the applicants who are seeking
to live and work in rural and regional Australia are able to
enter it with a lower pass mark.
Criticism of the point system and emphasis on skill
migration in general are, firstly, suggestions that students
are deliberately targeting educational courses that will
maximize their points in relation to a visa application to
Australia, that it is easy for applicants to be awarded
additional points in relation to fraudulent claims of work
experience; and that, secondly, an emphasis on skilled
migration and subsequent reduction of places allocated to
family-based migration may result in hardship to members of the
Australian community.
The New Zealand immigration program permits persons to
migrate to New Zealand or, if currently within New Zealand, to
obtain permanent residence. New Zealand's permanent migration
program is divided into: skilled/business; family sponsored;
and international humanitarian streams under which there are
also specific categories.
Currently, New Zealand's immigration program prioritizes
skill-based migration, and it has emphasized skill-based
migration since 1987.
New Zealand's immigration system is administered by
Immigration New Zealand, which is part of the Department of
Labor.
New Zealand utilizes the point system to select skilled
migrants for the skilled migrant category visas. These visas
grant permanent residence to a skilled migrant with no
requirement of a job offer or current employment in New
Zealand. The general objective of the New Zealand skilled
migrant category is to provide New Zealand residency to persons
with transferable skills to fulfill identified needs within the
New Zealand economy.
Genuinely skilled migrants have excellent labor market
participation rates within New Zealand. Skilled migrants are
awarded points on the basis of: qualifications; work
experience; age; employment; whether their occupation is in
demand in New Zealand; and whether they have any familiar
relations in New Zealand. Thus, under the New Zealand system,
applicants must satisfy basic criteria; they must be aged below
55 years, be of good health and character and have a reasonable
understanding of English.
They must also score above a minimum point threshold after
which they may submit an expression of interest to live and
work in New Zealand. Essentially, it is an interest in
residency within New Zealand. Once an expression of interest is
submitted, it is assessed by Immigration New Zealand, who may
invite the applicants to apply for residency; the assessment by
Immigration New Zealand is essentially by the number of points
obtained by the applicant.
Ms. Lofgren. Could you summarize?
Ms. White. I can. That is fine.
[The prepared statement of Ms. White follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lisa White
Ms. Lofgren. It has been very helpful--since I read all of
the testimony over the weekend, it has been very helpful to
have this testimony.
I have a couple of questions before we turn to the other
Members of the Committee.
In these jurisdictions, how do they treat family immigrants
and how does that differ from the way we treat family
immigrants here in the United States?
Each of you, quickly.
Ms. Feikert. In the United Kingdom, family reunification,
per se, is limited to spouses and it also now encompasses
unmarried same-sex partners, unmarried partners, and civil
partners, as well as traditional relationships, and extends
down to children under 18.
There is a provision for children over the age of 18 if it
can be shown they are dependent upon their parents still, and
if their parents will be able to provide for them without
recourse to public funds to join them.
As well, there is a provision for parents of the people
over--under the work permit or however they happen to be in
England, but it must be shown that the parents are dependent
upon the people in the UK and have no other means of being able
to take care of themselves in their home countries.
Mr. Clarke. The Canadian system is fairly similar. It does
not extend to extended relatives such as siblings or aunts,
uncles, people in other degrees of relationship. So that is how
Canada basically limits family class reunification.
Ms. White. Essentially, in Australia, it is worked out on
the basis of caps. Numbers for spouses and independent children
are not capped, but other family relatives may be, that is,
their numbers may be capped. But it is possible to bring in
age-dependent relatives.
Ms. Lofgren. Now I--you mentioned, in Australia, that it
was a concern of the government that for students--that they
might be skewing their studies to maximize their points; and I
thought, why would that be a problem? I mean, if you need
engineers and people study engineering, wouldn't that actually
meet the needs of the system?
Ms. White. This has been raised as an issue by independent
studies, not actually a government study.
Ms. Lofgren. I see.
Ms. White. I guess the concern was not so much that the
students were taking those courses, per se, but they were
taking other courses that still qualified for the points, but
may not have been as useful.
I believe there were also some concerns raised about the
quality of some of the courses taken by the students and
whether they were actually coming out graduating and being able
to participate in the workforce. There was concern that skilled
migrants who were students, coming in by that visa, that their
participation rate in the labor market was lower than the
general participation rate of graduates; and that is a problem.
Ms. Lofgren. Given the--that we have another panel, I am
going to stop my questioning now and turn to Mr. King for his
questions.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First, I have to compliment this panel on their excellent
command of the English language.
And it occurs to me that at least the point systems that
are out there that we are analyzing here today, and the ones I
am aware of, come from English-speaking countries. And some
would refer to that as Anglosphere.
But I will ask the question, starting with Ms. Feikert, is
that a coincidence, do you think?
Ms. Feikert. That it is from an English-speaking country? I
don't think that I could possibly answer that question.
I do know that it is--one of the reasons that I believe
that the scheme was introduced, the government stated was there
is a change in demographics. There are skills in the labor
markets that aren't being met by labor within the UK. They look
to different countries to see how their models were attracting
skilled migrants and based it off of the Australian model.
It turns out that the majority of people that are being
attracted into the country under the highly skilled migrant
program are from India and from non-English-speaking countries.
Mr. King. I think you have taken Ms. White off the hook for
that question.
Ms. Feikert. I am sorry.
Mr. King. Then--but I will go to Ms. White and ask her this
question then: In either Australian or New Zealand, either, are
there points awarded for work experience that was gained in
violation of temporary visas, people who are illegally working,
with either country? Do they get merit for that, demerit for
that? How is that handled?
Ms. White. Off the top of my head, I am not entirely
certain, but as a general rule, under both migration systems,
that counts against an applicant, working in violation of a
visa. So if that was found out, it might be--I would have to
probably take that on notice.
I think there might be some room around that if you weren't
aware you were working in violation of your visa, or if it was
one of those technical things and it was on one visa and it was
expired and it was a couple of weeks of work for the same
employer. But I would have to take that on notice.
Mr. King. I would go ahead and submit that question for the
record for an answer later so you can give it the opportunity
to be confident of that.
If either of the other two witnesses are confident in where
that stands, as to whether there is merit or demerit for
working in the country illegally, or do you prefer to answer
that in writing?
Ms. Feikert. I would prefer to answer it in writing.
Mr. Clarke. I also prefer to answer it in writing.
Mr. King. Then I go back to Ms. White, and again, in your
written testimony, it shows that immigrants that are admitted
under the independent skills, points-based program have the
highest earnings out of all skilled migrants.
So what do you think about the independent applicants that
seem to be performing better than those that are sponsored by
employers? What is the reason for that?
Ms. White. That is not necessarily the outcome. I believe
that figure is of the independent-skilled, and not necessarily
better than the employer-sponsored, although it may actually be
depending on the employer.
I think it has a lot to do with the skills and criteria of
the people who are coming. Just the nature of the system means
they are incredibly high-caliber, as a general rule,
applicants, and they have to be very confident of their ability
to earn a job within Australia before they--I mean, Australia
is physically a long, long way away from most other places.
So, as a general rule, people who come are just very
confident of their skills and they are very high caliber; and
they are able to earn that level.
Mr. King. Another, for fun, I notice that I believe the
Australians and the British both call it a ``scheme.'' that is
not a coincidence either.
Ms. White. I am sorry?
Mr. King. It is just a little aside, the different way we
use language. The plans and strategy policies you put together
are commonly referred to as ``schemes,'' and when we do that
here, there is a different connotation here.
But then I would go then to Ms. Feikert again, a series of
questions about the reference to fraud in your testimony and
how pervasive that has been. I see that you require original
documents rather than copies. Can you explain that a little
bit?
Ms. Feikert. That's correct.
The issuance of fraudulent documentation during visa
applications and work permits is a fairly pervasive problem
throughout the entire immigration system.
One issue with the highly-skilled migrant program was that
on the basis of just speculative applications, people weren't
sure whether they would meet the criteria. They would submit a
large number of documents in order to try and prove that they
would meet these criteria. This was overwhelming the
caseworkers, and oftentimes within there, there were some
fraudulent documents. Given the volume and the difference
between all of the documents that were being submitted, that
was becoming increasingly difficult to determine whether they
were genuine or fraudulent.
So to counter this problem, they have introduced a
requirement in that original documentation must be submitted,
and that it should be--for some requirements, it should be off
of a specified list of documents that they already--or they can
easily verify.
But I do know from other research, as well, that this is an
issue in other areas of visa issues and work permits and
various categories such as that.
Mr. King. Thank you, Ms. Feikert.
And not having time, I would love to go into the history of
Australia immigration, Ms. White. But, instead, I will yield
back to the Chair and thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. Noting that they were not high skilled, they
turned out okay. Their ancestors did.
Ms. Jackson Lee for 5 minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank the witnesses and thank the
Chairwoman and the Ranking Member for the series of hearings
that we are having. I know that the witnesses from the foreign
law--the foreign law specialists of the Law Library of Congress
will be sharing some technical responses, but I believe, as I
have been listening to you, you might be able to answer some of
the questions that I am going to ask.
Before I do that, I do want to note that this is a day that
many, many citizens who happen to be of immigrant background
are raising their voices regarding the need for this Congress
to move forward on immigration reform; and I believe this
Committee is moving expeditiously.
I am somewhat frustrated--and this is my own view--by what
seems to be a fishing expedition that the Administration seems
to be on. We have started out with a framework that dealt with
comprehensive immigration reform that included border security,
a worker program. Some used the term ``temporary.'' I like the
term ``worker program'' because it involves a number of aspects
of work, whether it be agricultural or otherwise.
And then the family reunification issue was a very
important component; and, of course, access to legalization
certainly included concepts, no criminal background, learning
English, paying fines and fees.
There is another element that I think has to be included,
is the confidence of Americans that, one, we are concerned
about their economic stability and their value to this Nation;
and so some of us are gathering around the thought of ensuring
that there is a component about job retention, job creation,
and an emphasis on moving forward, with looking to Americans
for positions before we go to the immigrant structure.
But certainly to begin talking about points to me offers an
all-around-the-world, all-around-the-thought processes. What
can we do next? A fishing expedition, a point process, that to
me demeans individuals who are coming as laborers, who have
come in years past and then rose up the, if you will, both the
intellectual and economic ladder.
We are reminded that many came from European countries in
the late 1800's and early 1900's, and I am not sure what level
of degree they were, but they went into, if you will, unskilled
labor work, and they moved up the economic ladder.
I would think one of the harshest examples, and I think
some will think it is harsh, but my ancestry, slave history,
was not about points. It was about who could work the hardest
and the longest in the hot sun. And many of us have suffered
from that history, but we have pulled ourselves up by the
bootstraps that we are looking for, the boots we are looking
for. We keep trying to go up the ladder.
So I am disturbed about a discussion on a point system, and
I have a letter here to the Chairwoman that lists a number of
organizations that are likewise disturbed. I think they are not
disturbed about--I wouldn't represent their position to be we
don't want to have reform that is strong and that has a basis
to it that has border security, but what we don't like now is
the labeling that seems to go on.
May I pose a question, Mr. Clarke, simply in other
countries, if they had a point system--and I might be open to a
point system that also has family reunification--do they have
balance, other balanced aspects, family reunification as well
as maybe a point system so that we don't discard the
opportunity for hard-working, tax-paying individuals who are
here to be able to bring their families?
And my second point is, many of us are gathering around the
idea that I just mentioned: show Americans that you want to
retain jobs for them. You want them to have first opportunity
for those jobs. You want to create job training. A lot of our
minority communities are sensitive about losing their jobs.
Are those ideas seen in any other countries, or would you
give some thought to an idea where you tell Americans their
jobs are not in jeopardy or their ability to retain their job
as well as a system that has points and family reunification?
Mr. Clarke. Those are two very controversial questions.
First, as to does Canada have family reunification, yes, it
most definitely does. But, generally, economic immigrants
outnumber family reunification by about two to one. That gives
us almost the reverse in the United States. So that is a major
difference between our two countries.
As to the other point as to whether there is an emphasis on
skilled workers, if I understand your question correctly,
perhaps it threatens persons in this country who have trained,
worked their way up into skilled positions themselves, whether
it threatens them being able to hold on to that, I guess the
Canadian experience is that that has not happened, that the
people that have come in with high knowledge and high level of
experience have been able to become successfully integrated
into the economy without displacing Canadian workers.
But I think your question is well put and probably needs
further investigation and a longer history since we are only
talking about the fifth year of the current program.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much.
To the young lady that was talking with us about the point
system and the immigration system in the U.K., where are most
of your immigrants coming from?
Ms. Feikert. Under the points program or generally?
Ms. Waters. Generally.
Ms. Feikert. Generally, I don't think that I could
specifically give you where most of the immigrants are coming
from off the top of my head. I could definitely get back in
touch with you.
For the U.K., I could say it does exclude any countries of
the----
Ms. Waters. I'm sorry. I can't hear you.
Ms. Feikert. I can say that wherever the countries where
the immigrants would most likely would come from, it would not
include members of the European Union or the European economic
area. Off the top of my head, though, I am afraid I couldn't
say.
Ms. Waters. Do you have a large African population?
Ms. Feikert. Not really African population. It is more from
Pakistan.
Ms. Waters. Arab League population?
Ms. Feikert. Not a considerable Arab League population. It
would be more--predominantly, the minorities are more
predominantly from Pakistan and India currently.
Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentlelady yield?
You actually do list the numbers on page 8.
Ms. Feikert. This is for entry under the highly skilled
migrant program.
Ms. Waters. And those immigrants from Pakistan and India
and other places are basically through the point system?
Mr. Feikert. They could enter into the country through any
system.
Under the point system----
Ms. Waters. Do you have a lot of undocumented from those
areas?
Ms. Feikert. The undocumented workers the U.K. have only
just recently been stated. They have recently just given how
many undocumented workers there are in the U.K., and they did
not break down demographic-wise.
Ms. Waters. You recently had some unrest in the U.K.; and
we were focused by the media on large numbers of, it appeared,
Arab background and African background. Were these documented
or undocumented? They were fighting about jobs. They were
making a lot of noise about jobs.
Ms. Feikert. I think the one that you might be referring to
may have been the Bradford riots, and these were--I think these
were initially documented people that had then gone out of
status. And I do remember there being a backlash against the
government because the people that stepped forward as witnesses
to some of these events were then linked, prosecuted and
deported because they had moved out of status. So it was a
mixture.
Ms. Waters. So there are some people who came in legally,
they were documented, and then they lost their jobs?
Ms. Feikert. No. They were--depending upon the visa that
they would enter under, possibly they entered under a temporary
visa worker where they would be legal in the U.K. for a period
of 12 months. But then one issue that the U.K. Government is
facing in terms of immigrants is that there is no departure
check. So once somebody is in the U.K. They can remain there--
--
Ms. Waters. Do you have a sizable number of immigrants who
are coming in as temporary workers?
Ms. Feikert. Off the top of my head, I can't pull the
figures. I'm sorry. But I can definitely get back to you with
those numbers.
Ms. Waters. But you think maybe the temporary worker
numbers are sizable?
Ms. Feikert. There are over 50 different categories of work
permits that people can enter into the U.K.; and with temporary
workers, I think there are 15 different workers.
Ms. Waters. What kinds of temporary work do they generally
do?
Ms. Feikert. There is a working holiday-maker scheme for
people of the Commonwealth which is a cultural exchange. There
is a seasonal agriculture worker scheme for unskilled people--a
sect of base-skilled working scheme for unskilled people who
work in the hospitality sector, and there are some schemes that
literally just one or two people would apply under every year.
Ms. Waters. So you may be in a situation similar to the one
in the United States where we need agricultural workers and we
need workers for low-paying jobs, entry level jobs, to support
the economy.
Ms. Feikert. That is correct.
Ms. Waters. But these people don't come in. It is very hard
for them to get legal status, permanent legal status.
Ms. Feikert. That is correct.
Ms. Waters. But if you are highly skilled with the point
system, you are most likely--for example, if you are an
attorney--I saw one of the cases here that you were asked to
respond to--most likely you would be allowed to get in.
Ms. Feikert. That is correct. That is correct. Skilled
people and as well people that have specific job offers, they
are more than likely going to be able to obtain a work permit
and then a visa for entry into the U.K.
Ms. Waters. So you have to have temporary workers, though,
in order to support the economy.
Ms. Feikert. That is correct.
One negative aspect that the Government is saying that is
coming from the temporary workers is that they have recently
mentioned that one of the reasons that these temporary workers
are needed is because the pay is so low and people in England
just don't want these low-paying jobs. And then one member of
Parliament from the U.K. said the reason they are low paying is
because everybody is coming in from overseas to have these
jobs, and it is depreciating the salary.
But that is just a possibly political statement.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Ellison. I was curious about the same topic. It is
interesting, so I will pick up there. Can you describe the
temporary program in the U.K.?
Ms. Feikert. I would refer to probably the most popular
temporary worker scheme, which is the seasonal agricultural
worker scheme. That is where members from--if I can just
actually refer to some notes----
Mr. Ellison. Just seasonal agricultural.
So how are the lengths of stay? Are they all the same? Is
there a unified time period?
Ms. Feikert. The seasonal workers are allowed to stay for a
12-month period of time under which they must return. I think
there is possibly a Category for extension for these workers,
but I do not believe they can remain for longer than 2 years.
Mr. Ellison. But 12 months and then can reapply and get
another year?
Ms. Feikert. Possibly.
Mr. Ellison. What are their rights as temporary workers?
Are they allowed to form unions?
Ms. Feikert. I would have to get back to you in terms of
whether they are able to form unions or not. I believe that
they pretty much have the same rights.
Mr. Ellison. I don't want you to speculate. If you don't
know, you could just say that, and you can get back to us.
I would also like you to let me know what percentage of
them are in unions if they do have the right to organization.
Does the U.K. have enshrined within its law the right to
organization? Is it a statutorily granted or a constitutional
right?
Ms. Feikert. The U.K. Does not have a constitution.
Mr. Ellison. You have the Magna Carta, right? But I mean do
you have a statutory right to organization within the U.K.?
Ms. Feikert. I would have to get back to you on that one as
well.
Mr. Ellison. Could you, please?
Ms. Feikert. Certainly.
Mr. Ellison. What is the average wage of one of those
temporary workers as compared to the general wage?
Ms. Feikert. It would have to be in the minimum wage
requirement, which is currently in the U.K. $10 or $11 per
hour.
Mr. Ellison. So they have the right to demand the minimum
wage.
Ms. Feikert. That is across the board. They have to pay
people the minimum wage.
Mr. Ellison. That is good. That is good.
And are these workers allowed to leave the employ of a
given employer and go to another employer if they should so
choose?
Ms. Feikert. For the seasonal agricultural workers, I would
have to, again, I am sorry, get back to you on that.
Mr. Ellison. Could you look into that?
One of the things I am really concerned about if we have a
seasonal worker program and somebody comes to work for X
Company. and they don't like their conditions but their status
somehow prohibits them from going anywhere else, that would be
a real problem for me. So I would be grateful if you could let
me know what even grand--well, the U.K. Does about that.
What is the rate of injury for workers in the program? Is
it higher than the general population? Is it lower than the
general population?
Ms. Feikert. I would again have to get back to you on that,
and I would also have to take into account they are doing
manual labor and look at the statistics for categories of
manual labor to get a better----
Mr. Ellison. I would really love to know that.
I guess you can tell where my questions are going. I want
to know if the temporary workers in England are taken advantage
of or not. I am not insisting that they would be. I am not
claiming. I don't know. I am hoping you can shed some light on
that.
I am curious to know about New Zealand as well. Do you have
a temporary workers program?
Ms. White. I would have to get back to you on the exact
outcome of the temporary workers program in New Zealand. I
believe it might be similar to the one in Australia. Australia
has a temporary--that is skilled again. It is generally skilled
workers coming in.
Mr. Ellison. Do you have a temporary agricultural program
similar to what has been described by the earlier witness?
Ms. White. No. Australia has not currently gone down that
path, but it is investigating it, and the latest Government
report on it looks at agricultural workers, but they would be
considering limiting it to the Pacific Island.
Mr. Ellison. But at this point there is no existing
agricultural temporary worker program?
Ms. White. That is correct. There is not.
Mr. Ellison. Is there a temporary program for people who do
factory work?
Ms. White. You would have to define ``factory work.'' There
are programs by which you can bring in temporary workers into
Australia where there is a skilled shortage of those workers,
and that could include some form of factory work. Generally,
those programs look at if you have some skill, even if it is
manual skill, fabric dyeers; machinists are an excellent
example.
Mr. Ellison. And given that you are not really sure about
the program, it might be hard to answer this question, but I am
also interested in whether there is a right to organize into a
union if you are a temporary worker, whether you have the right
to claim the minimum wage, what your rates of injury are, if
they are different from other workers.
Ms. Lofgren. Is that directed to all four countries
represented?
Mr. Ellison. Yes, ma'am. Actually, it is. And I would be
very grateful to get some response from each.
Thank you, Ms. White.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired.
Thank you very much, panel. You have been very, very
helpful, very enlightening.
Without objection, Members of the Subcommittee will have 5
legislative days to submit additional questions which we will
forward and ask you to answer as promptly as you are able to be
made part of the record.
Ms. Lofgren. We would now ask our third panel to come
forward.
I am pleased first to introduce Dr. Demetrios
Papademetriou--I didn't, hopefully, mess that up too badly--co-
founder and President of the Migration Policy Institute. Dr.
Papademetriou holds a Ph.D. in comparative public policy and
international relations and has taught courses at the
Universities of Maryland, Duke, American, and the New School
for Social Research.
A prolific writer, he co-directs the Transatlantic Task
Force on Immigration and has held an array of senior policy and
research positions, including Director of Immigration Policy
and Research at the U.S. Department of Labor, Chair of the
Secretary of Labor's Immigration Policy Task Force, and
Executive Director of the International Migration Review.
I would also like to welcome Howard Greenberg, a partner in
the Canadian law firm of Greenberg Turner. Mr. Greenberg chairs
the Citizenship and Immigration Law Specialization Committee of
the Law Society of Upper Canada and in this capacity certifies
Canadian attorneys practicing immigration law.
He co-edits the Immigration Law Reporter, the leading case
reporting publication. He has chaired the Canadian Bar
Association's National Immigration Section and the Nationality
and Immigration Committee of the International Bar Association.
Mr. Greenberg also teaches on the Faculty of Law at the
University of Ottawa.
We are also pleased to have Lance Kaplan with us, a partner
with Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy and a graduate of the
University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg and California
Western School of Law in San Diego.
Mr. Kaplan brings an extensive resume of international
practice to our panel. He has participated on numerous
Government liaison committees and formally directed his firm's
global immigration services for a Big Four accounting firm.
Finally, we have Robert Rector, a Senior Research Fellow
with the Heritage Foundation in Washington.
Mr. Rector's research is focused on the U.S. welfare
system; and he has authored a number of works on the subject,
including America's Failed $5.4 Trillion War on Poverty. Mr.
Rector earned his bachelor's degree from the College of William
and Mary and a master's from John Hopkins University.
Each of your written statements will be made part of the
record in its entirety, and I would like to ask that each of
you summarize your testimony in about 5 minutes.
As you have noted from the prior witnesses, we have this
handy dandy little box. When it turns yellow, the light, it
means there is about a minute to go; and when the light turns
red, it means that the 5 minutes are up.
Ms. Lofgren. So if we may begin with Dr. Papademetriou.
Welcome, and thank for your patience and thanks for being
here.
TESTIMONY OF DEMETRIOS G. PAPADEMETRIOU, Ph.D., PRESIDENT,
MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE
Mr. Papademetriou. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
It is good to see you again, and thank you very much for
honoring us last week at the fourth annual legal conference
that we cosponsored with a couple of other organizations.
What I would like to do today briefly is talk a little bit
about across points systems, because most of the things that we
have heard today are very specific to each country.
Secondly, I would like to answer the question of whether we
should be relying on points systems; and, if we should decide
that we should, exactly how should we be doing this. And I will
make some overall judgements, if you will allow me, on the
basis of about a couple of decades of looking at point systems.
I would like to start by making a sort of a direct
statement that points systems are essentially human capital
accrual mechanisms. This is for countries that feel that either
their educational or training systems somehow are not capable
to fill needs in the economy, and they reach out to the rest of
the world in order to bring in specialized talent to do that.
Secondly, that the things that define good points systems
are flexibility and constant adjustments. That is why you have
heard from the other witnesses that other countries keep
adjusting them in 2002, '03, '04, '05. Because, ultimately, any
advantage that points system has is that, through research and
evaluation, you can always try to do a little better. And that
is another one of the hallmark issues about such systems.
And all point systems, as we have heard, have four or five
criteria that are common to all of them: age, education,
occupation work experience, language. But what is more
interesting than that is that there are five or six other
categories, other criteria that different systems try to use in
order to, in a sense, put forward some of the priorities that a
specific country has at a specific point in time. And this
includes employer nomination or job offers, previews or
proposed earnings, etc. Increasingly as of late, in some
systems you can meet all of the points pass marks simply by
earning or having earned in the past $80,000 or $120,000 or
what have you. Prior work experience or education in the
country in which you are trying to immigrate to and the
presence of close relatives also count toward points totals.
Everybody more or less gets some points for having some close
relatives in the country; and, increasingly, particularly for
places like Canada and Australia that are trying to populate
parts of the country that are depopulated, they may give extra
points or extra consideration to people who are willing to
commit to settling in a specific part of the country.
So these are the kinds of things that pretty much the
various systems have.
So why are points systems so popular? Why are we having
sort of the conversation that we are having in this country?
Well, I think that we need to go back to the history of
points systems. You know, a lot of the countries that have them
decided to move into that direction because they were trying to
avoid the ups and downs of too many or too few immigrants.
Think of our own experience with H-1B visas. Any number that
you can actually pick is not a number that the market will
really have picked. It is a number that is imposed by an
outside body, in this case, of course, the U.S. Congress. Well,
some of those countries wanted to avoid this; and, at the same
time, they wanted to add to the overall human capital of the
country constantly and systematically; and that is what they
decided to do.
Also, these are countries that, in a sense, are continuing
to grow and intend to continue to grow through immigration. So
they want to improve overall economic outcomes by relying on an
awful lot of talent from the outside. The assumption nowadays
is that you cannot have too much human capital, rather than
that you have to meet specific shortages or specific demand on
the part of employers in order to meet your economic growth
requirements.
And, of course, very frequently, they have had weak
universities when they started with the points systems or
universities that were not particularly full service ones. So
they were not producing enough engineers, enough of this,
enough of that.
Again, none of these conditions, it seems to me, really
pertain to the United States.
But points systems have also been politically useful. They
give you a sense in most instances--well, I won't make a
judgment; I will wait for you to ask me--a sense that these are
objective measurements, you know, that somehow the Government
is in charge, rather than employers or family members who have,
in a sense, their own special interests.
When you do that, you are beginning to put the bureaucracy
in charge of all kinds of things your economy needs. Because,
ultimately, you have to make a judgment on the part of the
Government as to what the economy needs, which, you know,
probably has some problems in a society like ours.
Ms. Lofgren. Could we ask that you summarize?
Mr. Papademetriou. The two or three ways that I think, if
we want to accommodate a point system, we have to do so is very
perhaps narrowly. We have the EB1 a visa. It takes a long time.
It takes a lot of paperwork. We could simplify this by giving
points to individuals who could qualify for that visa.
There are many States in the United States that need people
or need special qualifications. Perhaps we could give an
opportunity to those States to add some points to the system
and have some immigrants go there.
And there are two more specific ways, and I will finish on
that. If we indeed cannot agree on what the requirements should
be for people to gain legal status, and we wanted to have a
diaphanous, transparent, simple system, we can impose a point
system on that.
And, finally, temporary migration. There were several
questions today about temporary workers who could have a point
system that would allow temporary workers after meeting certain
requirements to convert their status into that of permanent
immigrants.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Papademetriou follows:]
Prepared Statement of Demetrios G. Papademetriou
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Greenberg.
TESTIMONY OF HOWARD GREENBERG, PARTNER, GREENBERG TURNER
Mr. Greenberg. Madam Chair, thank you very much for
inviting me today.
The conversation has been quite stimulating, and it is my
pleasure to bring a Canadian context to this discussion. So let
me do so in the following way. I am going to deviate from my
written presentation and actually respond to the language I am
hearing today.
First of all, what is a point system? A point system is a
mechanism of selecting between a group of people.
Mr. Greenberg. It is as arbitrary as you want to make it.
It has factors that reflect your national interest, your
economy, your political agenda. So a point system is a tool
only, just like a lottery is a tool for allowing a large number
of people to come in.
So let's understand what the point system is in a larger
context, and I think I'll try to take you through the Canadian
context a bit. And I'm going to discuss--my discussion will
have four aspects to it for the 5 minutes.
Number 1 is a little bit of structure of Canada. And the
groupings we let people in, number 2. Why the Canadian system
is broken is number 3. And the lessons that you could learn
from our system is number 4.
In terms of structure, on or about November 1 of each
calendar year, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
tables before Parliament an immigration plan. An immigration
plan tells the Immigration Department how many bodies to
deliver in the next year and in what categories those bodies
should be delivered.
So I am very intrigued by your discussion about what
Congress does and what the Department does. In our system you
tell the Department pretty well what the game plan is and they
go ahead and implement that. They are not micromanaged by
Parliament each day. It is done on 1 day and that is it for the
next year.
Number 2, the groupings do not compete with one another.
The government sets its priorities by, first of all,
determining the volume of the immigrants that will come to
Canada--for argument's sake, 265,000 on the high end--and then
divides up that grouping appropriately. So there will be a
certain number of groupings that are in that family class that
are selected for whatever political reasons those might be. And
there are a certain number that are in a range in the economic
class, but they do not compete. And if you don't get one, it is
not like you get more of the other.
So the nice thing about that discussion that I have heard
here today is that if you decide to increase the economic
class, it doesn't have to be to the detriment of another class.
It all depends on what the global sum is that you start with.
If you create enough capacity in the system, everybody can win.
It just means how large of a system do you want to create.
And I should tell you, that debate is ongoing now in
Canada, both in the forefront and the background, because there
is some suggestion by the economists, some economists, one
economist, that we should be moving to 1 percent of our
population, which will be 300,000. So we are eeking our way up
for that 1 percent. Nobody understands the rationale to the 1
percent, but it is easy to calculate, and so we now know where
the finish line is.
So I have had a chance to discuss structure with you.
Within the structure you have the groupings. Now, understand,
within one of the groupings you have economic, and--I'm sorry,
that is the blue that has disappeared on the chart. And then
you say to yourself, well, how many are you taking in that blue
grouping? And if you're talking, like we are about, according
to my paper, about 140 to 158,000 in that grouping, you got to
say to yourself, well, we don't have a lot of money to do this;
so what kind of instrument can we use, what kind of blunt
instrument can we use that we can sift these people through
where we don't have to touch 158,000 people and interview them
and expend a huge amount of money? And the answer is, why not
just get a point system? So we started with a point system.
We would run them all through the point system like flour
through a sifter. But what did we find out about the previous
point systems, that arbitrary system of selecting people? We
found out that the criteria was not objective enough. It was
too subjective. We had visa officers looking into people's eyes
trying to figure out if they were personally suitable to come
to Canada, and then say, I don't think so, I'm giving 2 points
out of 10. Court challenges all over the place that decisions
were too arbitrary. Language testing by a visa officer saying,
say that to me again in English so I can hear how you say that;
read me from a book.
So when we got to the point of June 2002 when the new
legislation came into effect, the answer was let's overhaul
this thing and do a comprehensive immigration change. And we
did. We were where you are now. And so if you sat in a small
room with some of the decision makers like I did, and we had
some focus discussions about what are we really doing here,
they would say, look, our number one principle is we want to
make this so objective that we don't have discrepancy amongst
visa officers in the world. They don't like you in China, you
fail; they like you in Hong Kong, you pass. Same guy being
assessed. They don't want that. So let's see if we can make it
more objective.
But how about that language test? Well, there is this
international language test, ILs. We'll choose a pass point to
7 for maximum points. You write the test. Everyone writes the
same one in the world. Great.
What about the rest of the criteria? Well, I don't know, we
kind of make up something, like your spouse has education,
we'll give you 5 more points; you got a job in Canada, you get
10 points. In other words, let's just throw together a whole
combination. Great. Now what happens? Let's create a pass rate.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Greenberg, we need to have you----
Mr. Greenberg. Okay. Start a pass rate of 70. We move down
to 67 points at the end of the day, pass rate. Why? It is
arbitrary. And that is the tool that was used and that is the
tool that is used.
Here is the problem with the system. If you are coming in
through the system and you are coming in through employment-
based jobs, you are getting your credit, you have a job offer,
you are getting off the plane and you are hitting the ground
running, great.
If you are getting off that plane and you don't have a job
offer in your hand, even though you have made a sufficient
number of points, your point of assimilating into Canadian
society is delayed considerably, if not permanently hampered.
You are unemployed for months on end, and if you do get
employment, you don't get employment in the standard that you
left your country at. You come off the plane as an engineer,
but you never practice as an engineer.
So that is the breakage in the system, is that you don't
come back into the system where you left your own country. And
that is why the emphasis in my paper is an employment-based
system. That is why I think you kind of got it right with the H
visas. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Greenburg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Howard Greenberg
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Kaplan.
TESTIMONY OF LANCE KAPLAN, PARTNER, FRAGOMEN,
DEL REY, BERNSEN, AND LOEWY
Mr. Kaplan. Madam Chairwoman, Members of the distinguished
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I
won't repeat what I have previously indicated in my written
testimony, nor will I repeat the factors which are inherent in
most of the countries' points-based systems. But I will focus
some of my remarks today in relation to Australia specifically.
The most important issue to note from a comparison of other
countries' immigration systems is the realization that other
countries who compete against us for global leadership and
innovation are more aggressively harmonizing their immigration
policies with their economic needs.
In this knowledge-based economy, the key to success of any
venture is having the right talent in the right place at the
right time. The priorities that we have established within our
immigration system have caused doors to be closed to such
talent, albeit sometimes unintentionally.
The question to consider for us is whether a points-based
system will help us secure this much-needed talent within our
vibrant economy. The concept of assigning points to immigrants
first arose as a way for most countries to increase population
by attracting industrious people into their workforce. In
essence, a point-based immigration system allows the government
to socially engineer its demographic. It is well accepted that
Australia is considered to have a very effective points-based
system and allocates points according to the age, skill-level,
English language, and whether the occupation is in demand. And
of course, there are other factors which have been mentioned
here today.
But whether a points-based system is appropriate for the
United States requires careful consideration of the following
issues:
First, it must be flexible and respond to market changes.
And would such a system work as well in our form of Government
as it does under a Parliamentary structure where the government
of the day establishes and implements policy in a more
expedient manner? We cannot be responsive to market changes if
we have to go through a legislative process each time we have
to amend a list of jobs or adjust a pass mark.
Second, even if Congress were to use its authority to
delegate immigration policy to either the USCIS or the
Department of Labor or the Department of State, is the
rulemaking process necessarily more nimble or responsive to
market demands? In 1990 Congress authorized the Department of
Labor to place a list of shortage occupations on Schedule A.
For the past 17 years, even though the structure of our economy
has gone through many changes, and we have been through many
business cycles, Schedule A has remained static. By contrast,
Australia reviews its lists every 6 months.
Third, what outcome do we as a Nation want to achieve with
a points-based system that is not accomplished in the current
system? A point-based system is one way to socially engineer a
demographic when an influx of immigrants is needed to boost the
country's workforce. The United States, as my colleague
mentioned earlier, is not in that situation. What we need are
qualified people to fill skill or labor gaps. And as such, a
point-based system must be sufficiently flexible to identify
particular needs of U.S. Employees and not just generalized
credentials.
One way to achieve this flexibility is to provide greater
point value for prearranged employment or advanced education
and experience. But it is unclear what results such a system
would produce that differs from the current American system of
employee-sponsored preference categories. Therefore, it must be
clear as what we have achieved through this points-based system
that cannot be achieved by removing from our system the
obstacles of arbitrary quotas and processing delays. That is a
really important point.
It is also important to note that the points-based system
is an avenue to address one component of an entry program into
the country. But it cannot and should not be viewed in
isolation or to the exclusion of any other component of a well-
contemplated, broader immigration program.
The political administrator of economic structures of the
U.S. economy are different from those of other countries
currently administering a points test as part of the
immigration programs. We have the fundamentals of a good system
that addresses the economic needs of the United States.
However, I believe that we need to sharpen the economic focus
and significantly improve the procedural elements within our
current existing program. And this will improve our ability to
not only compete for, but actually bring in and absorb, skilled
workers so that we can continue to reap the benefits of
immigration.
I also wanted to mention two important points. Most other
countries, when they have a points-based system, use the
points-based system for permanent residents primarily. When we
have this discussion it is important to note that we have a
temporary need for immigrants, we have a permanent need for
immigrants, we have a permanent need for immigrants that are
going to come in under the employment-based program and under a
family-based program in a points-based system. In whichever way
we ultimately decide to implement it, if we actually do, we
would benefit greatly from fixing our current system, which
would form the basis of the points-based system going forward,
as well as potentially respond to the issues which the
Senator----
Ms. Lofgren. We are going to ask you to wrap up so we can
hear from Mr. Rector.
Mr. Kaplan. Sure.
--which the Senator referenced in relation to the illegal
immigration provisions. And with that, I will conclude, and
thank you for the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kaplan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lance Kaplan
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Rector.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT RECTOR, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, THE
HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Mr. Rector. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be
here today. I am going to talk to you today about research I
have done over the last 6 months concerning the fiscal costs of
low-skill immigrants into the United States. By low-skill
immigrants I mean individuals that do not have a high school
degree.
Over the last 20 years or so, the United States has
imported about 11 million people without a high school degree
through both the legal and illegal immigration channels. If we
look at illegal immigrants, 50 or 60 percent of them do not
have a high school degree. Even if we look at legal immigrants,
about 25 percent do not have a high school degree. Overall,
about a third of all adult immigrants do not have a high school
degree. You could compare that to around 9 percent for the
native-born population.
Most people think that historically we have always had this
pattern of bringing in individuals that are much lower skilled
than the nonimmigrant population, but that is not true.
Historically, in fact, immigrants were slightly more skilled
than the native-born population. And what we have done in the
last 20 years is an anomaly. Altogether there are about 4-1/2
half million immigrant households headed by high school
dropouts. They are about 5 percent of our U.S. population.
Now, those households, looking at Census Bureau data and
data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other Government
sources, in fact receive about $30,000 a year in Government
benefits. That includes Social Security, Medicare, 60 different
means-tested welfare programs, public education costs, as well
as costs like fire departments, police and highways, things
that have to expand as you add additional people into the
population.
Those same households on average pay about $10,500 in
taxes. And my study examines over 30 different types of taxes.
These households pay very little in income tax, but they pay a
significant amount of Social Security tax, very large amounts
of consumption tax, sales tax, property tax, pay a substantial
amount of State lottery costs and things like that. But,
overall, there you have a gap for each of those households of
about 19- to $20,000 a year of benefits that they receive that
they do not pay for; that someone else has to pay for. As some
people have said, that is equivalent to purchasing them a
convertible automobile each and every year.
If this type of individual comes into the United States or
brings a family with him and remains for the course of his
life, the net cost to the U.S. taxpayer, benefits minus taxes
paid in, is about $1.2 million over his lifetime. If you take
all of these low-skilled immigrant households in any given
year, the net cost to the taxpayer is around $90 billion.
I also find very significantly that there is virtually no
difference in the fiscal cost of high school dropout native-
born households when compared to high school dropout immigrant
households. They both cost a bundle. If you were to ask the
average citizen, hey, we had 10 million native-born high school
dropouts that came from Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, everyone
would realize, hey, that doesn't sound like a very good idea.
But somehow in this debate, if the high school dropout is
coming from Mexico or Guatemala, well, that is very different.
In reality it is not very different. Both of those types of
individuals are very costly to the taxpayer.
Moreover, you will see in my written research that these
households are a net burden on the taxpayer at every stage of
their life cycle. From the moment they enter the country until
the point that they die, these households on average cost
significantly more in terms of benefits received than they pay
in in taxes. And on average it is about $3 of benefits for
every dollar of taxes paid in.
The irony that we are looking at here is that the United
States has a very generous system of support for disadvantaged
Americans. It gives it to working disadvantaged Americans and
those that don't work. We transfer about $1-1/2 trillion out of
the upper middle class in taxes to provide benefits for those
who have less advantages.
The problem is that that system is justified, and that is
also a system that we can afford. However, if you try to apply
that same standard of generosity to a very large inflow of very
poorly educated immigrants from abroad, this imposes enormous
fiscal costs that the Nation really cannot afford. I would say
that my estimates show that these low-skill immigrant
households over the next 10 years alone will cost the taxpayers
nearly a trillion dollars.
I believe that as a national policy what we have
inadvertently done is that we actually have an immigration
system, through both legal and illegal immigration, that is
forming a sort of welfare outreach where we are bringing
welfare recipients in from abroad at huge costs to the
taxpayer.
Since there are probably a billion people that would like
to come and live in the United States, I think as a general
rule we should set our immigration policy so that those who
come in will be a net gain to the U.S. taxpayer, not a net
loss. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rector follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Rector
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Rector, all those bells mean that we have
votes on the floor. And all you have been here since 2:00. Your
testimony has been terrific. What the Ranking Member and I have
agreed to is that--there are four of us here--we will limit
ourselves to 1 minute that includes both our question and the
answer. And then we will not ask you to wait because it is
going to be 40 minutes of voting.
And so I would just like to ask Dr. Papademetriou, your
suggestion was the first I have heard that if we, looking at a
new worker provision, as has been discussed by the White House
in sum, that if there were a temporary program, that there is a
need for stability.
I think Mr. Ellison had some questions about sort of
creating an underclass that you might use some point system to
convert or allow people who want to apply to convert to a
permanent system. That is the first I have heard of that. Can
you explain any more in 25 seconds?
Mr. Papademetriou. Yes. Suppose that people come and work
here for 3 years. At the end of those 3 years they could try to
become permanent residents. It would be a point-like system. It
c give points for some additional education, some greater
knowledge of the language, of course not breaking the rules, et
cetera, et cetera. Those people who would want to try to pass
that screen and become LPRs can do so.
Ms. Lofgren. My time is expired. I am going ask Mr. King
for his 1 minute.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair. For a lightening round I
will go directly then to Mr. Rector and ask you a question I am
confident you don't expect. And that is: Has the open borders
lobby responded to your study and, if so, how?
Mr. Rector. No. I think they are very afraid of this type
of data. I would say that what my findings are are essentially
the same findings the National Academy of Sciences has had 10
years ago, which are low-skill immigrants are a huge burden on
the U.S. taxpayer. We have tried to bury that piece of
information in the debate.
Mr. King. In other words, they are ignoring this study
rather than trying to come up with some alternative numbers?
There are no other numbers available out there that one could
discuss alongside these to identify the distinctions between
the rationale?
Mr. Rector. There is no study that I am aware of that shows
that low-scale immigrants pay more in taxes than they take out
in benefits. It would be implausible to have such a study;
although in my study we lay out all hundred equations. Very
simply, anyone who doesn't like the way I did the tobacco
excise tax can go in and do it their way. But the fact of the
matter is I think the numbers kind of speak for themselves.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Rector. I ask unanimous consent
that your study be introduced into the record.
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection.
Mr. Berman, 1 minute.
Mr. Berman. I won't get into who the open borders lobby is.
I haven't met them yet.
Taxes versus benefits, Mr. Rector. Where do you put the
value--one of the reasons income taxes is low is because wages
for this population is pretty low. Where do you put the value
of industries that would not be here but for the--basically the
population of people who hasn't graduated high school?
Let's just take agriculture. How do you value the enhanced
value of having that part of the economy in perishable fruits
and vegetables, seasonable agricultural industry, how do you
value the costs in terms of economic security of not having
such an industry in this country and having to import all of
that? Where does that come into your equation?
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Berman----
Mr. Berman. Now, there is my minute.
Ms. Lofgren. I think we are going to have to get the answer
in writing.
Mr. Berman. I think this format, unfortunately, because
there is no alternative, doesn't lead to an answer.
Mr. Rector. I would be happy to give you that answer in
writing, Congressman.
Ms. Lofgren. I would ask unanimous consent that a letter
from a number of organizations about this hearing be submitted
into the record.
I would thank the witnesses not only for being here, but
for your written testimony which was excellent, and note that
the record is open for 5 legislative days. We may send you
questions in writing that we would ask that you answer as
promptly as possible.
We will have our next hearing on Thursday: The U.S.
Economy, U.S. Workers, and Immigration Reform. It will be held
May 3, as I said, at 3 p.m., and this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Questions submitted to each of the Law Library of Congress witnesses by
the Honorable Steve King, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law
Memorandum accompanying answers to post-hearing questions posed by the
Honorable Steve King, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, received
from Rubens Medina, Law Librarian of Congress
Answers to post-hearing questions posed by the Honorable Steve King,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees,
Border Security, and International Law, received from Rubens Medina,
Law Librarian of Congress
Questions submitted to each of the Law Library of Congress witnesses by
the Honorable Keith Ellison, Member, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law
Memorandum accompanying answers to post-hearing questions posed by the
Honorable Keith Ellison, Member, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, received
from Stephen F. Clarke, Senior Foreign Law Specialist, Law Library of
Congress
Answers to post-hearing questions posed by the Honorable Keith Ellison,
Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law, received from Stephen F. Clarke,
Senior Foreign Law Specialist, Law Library of Congress
Heritage Special Report entitled ``The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill
Households to the U.S. Taxpayer,'' by Robert Rector, Christine Kim, and
Shanea Watkins, Ph.D., published by The Heritage Foundation, submitted
by the Honorable Steve King, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International
Law
Letter from the Alliance of Filipinos for Immigrant Rights and
Empowerment (AFIRE), et al. to the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law